EB-1AElectrical and electronic engineeringEmployerDecided October 2020Dismissed
Outcome: Dismissed
OCT152020_03B2203
JudgingMetLeading or critical roleMetAwardsNot metOriginal contributionsNot metHigh salaryClaimed, not analyzedPublished materialClaimed, not analyzedScholarly articlesClaimed, not analyzedFinal meritsNot met
Our summary
A semiconductor staff engineer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed because he satisfied only two of ten criteria: judging and leading critical role. Original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the field, and the record did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim.
Official PDF
Official PDF ↗Published by USCIS. The summary is ours, in our own words; the decision text is on uscis.gov.
What the AAO accepted
- Judging · Served as peer reviewer for Applied Power Electronics Conference technical digests.
- Leading or critical role · Served in critical roles within corporate group with distinguished reputation.
What was missing
- Awards · No major internationally recognized award submitted or established.
- Original contributions · Contributions to power electronics designs were original but lacked evidence of major significance or impact in field.
- Final merits · Petitioner did not meet minimum three criteria threshold; no final merits review reached.
Criteria
| Criterion | Reading | Why |
|---|---|---|
 Judging | Met | Served as peer reviewer for Applied Power Electronics Conference technical digests. |
 Leading or critical role | Met | Served in critical roles within corporate group with distinguished reputation. |
 Awards | Not met | No major internationally recognized award submitted or established. |
 Original contributions | Not met | Contributions to power electronics designs were original but lacked evidence of major significance or impact in field. |
 High salary | Claimed, not analyzed | Director acknowledged claim but petitioner did not contest; criterion not analyzed on appeal. |
 Published material | Claimed, not analyzed | Director acknowledged claim but AAO did not contest waiver; criterion not analyzed on appeal. |
 Scholarly articles | Claimed, not analyzed | Director acknowledged claim but AAO did not contest waiver; criterion not analyzed on appeal. |
 Final merits | Not met | Petitioner did not meet minimum three criteria threshold; no final merits review reached. |
A published decision describes one case. It is not legal advice and not a prediction for yours.